Not to be a killjoy, but isn’t the first snippet referring to the discretion taken on whether to file the take-down request, and the second snippet is referring to the discretion on whether to contact the channel owner beforehand?

Don’t get me wrong, I hate the BBC, I just wonder whether they are talking about the same thing here.

…. and it’s surely significant that, I think, never has the BBC raised the question of ‘fair use’.
Does the BBC have an explicit capital-P Policy of not objecting to fair use of their copyright material?
I’m guessing that the BBC’s position is that judgement of what constitutes ‘fair use’ is nothing to do with them. If you (technical judgement) infringe their rights, they will require you to stop. If you want to get a hearing for the ‘fair use’ defence, you have to take them to court.
Doesn’t it say, in the Good Book somewhere, that ‘you will not find it easy to kick against the pricks’?

The blatantly biased state controlled BBC there, making it up as they go along.

Just like they do with ‘the ‘news’ where you are’.

The sad reality however, is that there are still some folk, who genuinely believe that the state-run and funded BBC, is somehow different and honest and impartial, and really, really, really tells the truth. Of course most in Scotland discovered during the Scottish independence referendum that the state-run BBC is as it’s name implies, a Westminster propagandist mouthpiece, akin to cold war Pravda in the USSR.

Independence Live who are essential viewing if you can’t get to the marches and also streams live loads of other Indy stuff has a crowdfunder open. 16 days to go and only 8% funded currently. We need it to see footage you are never going to see in the BBC or STV.

The BritNat Brainwashing Channel claims to have a system in place whereby an elected official, be that a local councillor, MP, etc. shall be notified of a copyright infringement on YouTube prior to the BBC pursuing action resulting in the takedown of the offending YouTuber’s channel. Other offenders shall not receive such advance notice.

There must therefore be a BBC policy document, specific instruction or staff notice stating such.

An FoI request should be used to confirm that such existed at the time that Wings’ channel was taken down – or to confirm what many suspect… That they’re making it up as they go along as an exercise in @rse covering!

Yeah! We all know what discretion means in their book.
We will allow theirs because we can and wont allow yours because your a nationalist who wants to break up my beloved country that pays my wages! Remember the old BBC motto “and nation shall speak unto nation” (as long as they are speaking unionist drivel)

My granny used to say something like … the problem with lying is, if you don’t want found out, you need to be consistent in your lies and remember them all. And that’s a huge energy sucking task, so best not to try.

She was right. You need to tell every one the same story, not lies to some, different lies to others, and the truth to yet another group. No one can keep up that web of deceit for long, so the simple solution is to just tell the truth.

The BBC need to heed my granny’s wise words, if they care about being found out.

Not surprised one bit, the only difference now is that most people know what a propaganda tool the BBC is.

The Labour supporters are getting the picture now with the whole Corbyn thing. They still don’t give a s**t that the demonisation of A.Salmond was and is just like their ‘Corrrrbyyynnn’ demonisation though, with bells on!

And great how they can deny FOI requests whilst at the same time bombarding the Scottish Government with them. Transparent, trustworthy, impartial and honest, my backside. Thank God more and more people are seeing right through this odious outfit.

I had a similar thought, but what then is the point of exercising discretion in contacting someone beforehand, if not to influence the outcome somehow? Nothing very “automatic” about that.

In NorthBritLab propagandist Arthur’s case, for example, he was enabled to discreetly withdraw his “offending” content but otherwise could remain on YouTube. Stu and Moridura were summarily shut down because the Beeb objected to three instances. (A consequence that anyone savvy would expect.)

So the BBC defer to Establishment figures – as they themselves admitted – whereas ordinary people just get stepped on.

“isn’t the first snippet referring to the discretion taken on whether to file the take-down request, and the second snippet is referring to the discretion on whether to contact the channel owner beforehand?”

No. Read the sentence preceding the highlighted section. No leeway there. The rights are either infringed or they aren’t, and the highlighted section unambiguously says that’s the ONLY criterion. To make a decision about how you seek that removal requires the exercise of discretion, based on factors which are nothing to do with the legality.

The old saying You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time comes to mind. The problem for the beeb is that once the people you have lied to realise that you are taking them for being fools there are fewer and fewer that will ever trust you again. Your time is up Beeb your lies have found you out!

In the second it’s admitted that the legal department have discretion on who they harass. Generally so as to avoid the obvious conclusion that the BBC deliberately targets the opponents of those paying their wages. Or rather it’s not actually discretion it’s a hands off directive.

In general you’d think the BBC would do it’s best to avoid losing a fair use case if it was taken to court. However in Youtube’s case what they’re doing is the equivalent of leaning on a 3rd party in the hopes they’ll fold.

Stu, From Gov.uk official site:-
“Find out what data an organisation has about you

Write to an organisation to ask for a copy of the information they hold about you.

If it’s a public organisation, write to their Data Protection Officer (DPO). Their details should be on the organisation’s privacy notice.

If the organisation has no DPO, or you do not know who to write to, address your letter to the company secretary.

How long it should take

The organisation must give you a copy of the data they hold about you as soon as possible, and within 1 month at most.

In certain circumstances, for example particularly complex or multiple requests, the organisation can take a further 2 months to provide data. In this case, they must tell you:
•within 1 month of your request
•why there’s a delay

When information can be withheld

There are some situations when organisations are allowed to withhold information, for example if the information is about:
•the prevention, detection or investigation of a crime
•national security or the armed forces
•the assessment or collection of tax
•judicial or ministerial appointments

An organisation does not have to say why they’re withholding information.

How much it costs

Requests for information are usually free. However, organisations can charge an administrative cost in some circumstances, for example if:
•you’re asking for a large amount of information
•your request will take a lot of time and effort to process.”

Under the DPA they must supply you with all info they hold on you.
Demand a Full Record Print.
If they start shredding and deleting after you contct them, they will be breaking the law and could go to gaol.

Sorry, off topic, but regarding yesterday’s article of FoI requests of the Scottish Gov from the BBC and other political parties, has anyone requested the same info from the UK Gov, particularly in relation the BBC Scotland/STV requests to the UK Gov. That could be quire illuminating

The BBC responded yesterday to a request I made for details of contacts between them and YT that may have resulted in “strikes” against YT channels for copyright infringements.

It includes this….

“The BBC does not hold a central record of infringing content that has been taken down from websites such as Youtube, or details of individual accounts against which notices are filed. In order to identify details of contacts between the BBC and Youtube, the BBC would need to review each individual infringement notice and the URLs within each notice, during the period of your request. It is not possible to to retrospectively determine the accounts that have been terminated by the respective platforms, the BBC does not hold this information”

They went on to state that 508 notices were issued by the BBC in the previous year to Youtube, and accross all platforms (Twitter, Facebook etc) was approx 630.

“our broader aim is also to educate on how to spot disinformation and verify sources. This kind of work attracts the extremely hostile and aggressive attention of disinformation actors, like the Kremlin and its various proxies, so we hope you understand that our members mostly prefer to remain anonymous”

Also ” We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and agencies who share our aims”.

What the hell is that all about? Is this what the whole Jones debacle was about?

… disinformation actors, like the Kremlin … we do work with government departments and agencies who share our aims …

Any organisation which claims that “disinformation” only emanates from the ‘global black hats’ and not from the likes of the UK government and MSM, is either foolish or fraudulent.

I have no doubt Russia, China, Iran, whoever, have agencies acting on their own interests across the internet. That will involve spreading fake news, among other things. Here in Scotland we are being attacked by agencies much closer to home!

It isn’t the BBC’s licences fee, grafter. Go read the bloody licence for yourself. It is Her Majesty’s Government Licence fee and it is Her Majesty’s Treasury that gets the money.

The word Licence means, “Permission”, and the licence say on the front page that it grants the holder the right to receive live video broadcasts FROM ANY SOURCE on any media including the internet. That is including commercial TV, Satellite TV and live video on the internet.

You pay Her Majesty’s Government for permission to watch any kind of live broadcast video and Her Majesty’s Government pays an annual grant to ONLY the BBC for their services to the government – they do not pay then for services to the public for if they did they would have to pay every TV channel provider on, (just for starters), Freeview.

The Licence holder simply does not fund the BBC. They only pay the government to get permission from the government to watch TV.

Furthermore, as the grant made to the BBC is paid from General taxation every tax payer is paying towards the government’s propaganda whether they pay for permission or not.

What’s more they even pay for it if they never watch it.

Don’t feel bad about getting told the truth, grafter, for you are just one of the many the BBC and the Westminster Establishment have been brainwashing to believe their licences fee pays for the BBC.

Believe me when I tell you there are more licence payers who wrongly think they are paying for BBC programmes than there are those who know the truth and that is a measure of just how successful the Westminster Establishment and the BBC are at brainwashing the public, and it is not just fooling them about the licence fee and that is why they do it.

The BBC was founded in the late 1920s as the Government’s Propaganda unit. Just take a moment to consider when – “Wireless”, broadcasting began.

Guglielmo Marconi made his historic foray into broadcasting in 1901, when his wireless transmitted the first radio waves across the curvature of the earth. In 1918 the First World War Began.

On 18 October 1922, in London The BBC began. It was the World’s first public wireless broadcaster and the World’s first propaganda broadcaster – it still is the largest World Wide Propaganda Service and the most successful.

The BBC has always been the United Kingdom Government’s propaganda wing. And the measure of their success is that it is the taxpayer that pays to have the Government brainwash them.

@Robert Peffers 3:28pm
You make this point each time people state they have not paid their licence.

Surely withholding the licence fee is worth doing given you also believe the discredited BBC is the propaganda arm of the UK government?

It makes no odds that the discredited BBC still get their money. The UK government has to find those funds from somewhere else if I refuse to pay.

And just because you know the technicalities of how the discredited BBC is funded doesn’t take away from how it is marketed. It therefore makes sense not to pay in order to be added to the numbers and spread the load for the inspectors.

@ Robert Peffers – I understood the licence fee covered live broadcasts from any source and now BBC iPlayer video. But I thought webcasts are not covered such as Independence Live and the Parliament webcasts.

Sorry I haven’t looked this up online. I’m alleric to the BBC now.
I file all my demands to pay in the bin. Now that I’m not buying “newspapers” either I need something to light the fire with.

O/T
Twitter seems to be getting its own back for yesterday’s #DissolvetheUnion stuff. I’m now locked out of my account & I’ve appealed its suspension. Demanding a phone number-not a chance, change of password-nope don’t see why I should.

If someone could put a tweet out on my behalf just saying I’m locked out of my account I’d be grateful.

@Truth says: 29 August, 2018 at 4:28 pm:” … You make this point each time people state they have not paid their licence.”

Yes and I will continue to do so as long as there are those who deny the truth. It is counter-productive when the whole concept in people’s heads is that they are only depriving the BBC of funding. It doesn’t change the BBC grant from the Government.

” … Surely withholding the licence fee is worth doing given you also believe the discredited BBC is the propaganda arm of the UK government?”

First of all it isn’t a matter of what I believe but of what the person withholding the licence fee believes they are achieving. Secondly it is a matter of exactly what they are actually achieving.

” … It makes no odds that the discredited BBC still get their money.”

Oh! Yes it Does! Which is why I keep harping on about it.

” … The UK government has to find those funds from somewhere else if I refuse to pay.”

Well now, there’s a thing, you are beginning to think about it in the correct manner. You need to continue with that train of thought.

” … And just because you know the technicalities of how the discredited BBC is funded doesn’t take away from how it is marketed.” So there you go – off at a tangent again.

Here you also make a fundamental error. Can you show in any of my comments where I have made the slightest suggestion that anyone should either pay or not pay the licence fee? Don’t bother looking for I have never done so.

” … It therefore makes sense not to pay in order to be added to the numbers and spread the load for the inspectors.”

Way off on a tangent again, Truth. The BBC Grant comes from General Taxation and the licence fee goes directly to the Treasury. Here are a few Cut & Pastes on the subject:-

“blockquote>The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament, and used to fund the BBC’s radio, TV, and online services covering the nations and regions of the UK. Since 1 April 2014, it has also funded the BBC World Service (launched in 1932 as the BBC Empire Service), which broadcasts in 28 languages and provides comprehensive TV, radio, and online services in Arabic and Persian.

Bolding by me.

From its inception, through the Second World War (where its broadcasts helped to unite the nation), to the 21st century, the BBC has played a prominent role in British culture. It has also been known as “The Beeb”, and “Auntie”.

Bolding by me. Now let’s get down to just a few brass tacks the following requires to be entirely bolded – so I won’t bother:-

From as early as the 1930s until the 1990s, MI5, the British domestic intelligence service, engaged in vetting of applicants for BBC positions, a policy designed to keep out persons deemed subversive. In 1933, BBC executive Colonel Alan Dawnay began to meet with the head of MI5, Sir Vernon Kell, to informally trade information; from 1935, a formal arrangement was made wherein job applicants would be secretly vetted by MI5 for their political views (without their knowledge). The BBC took up a policy of denying any suggestion of such a relationship by the press (the existence of MI5 itself was not officially acknowledged until the Security Service Act 1989.

This relationship garnered wider public attention after an article by David Leigh and Paul Lashmar appeared in The Observer in August 1985, revealing that MI5 had been vetting appointments, running operations out of Room 105 in Broadcasting House. At the time of the exposé, the operation was being ran by Ronnie Stonham. A memo from 1984 revealed that blacklisted organizations included the far-left Communist Party of Great Britain, the Socialist Workers Party, the Workers Revolutionary Party and the Militant Tendency, as well as the far-right National Front and the British National Party. An association with one of these groups could result in a denial of a job application.

In October 1985, the BBC announced that it would stop the vetting process, except for a few people in top roles, as well as those in charge of Wartime Broadcasting Service emergency broadcasting (in event of a nuclear war) and staff in the BBC World Service. In 1990, following the Security Service Act 1989, vetting was further restricted to only those responsible for wartime broadcasting and those with access to secret government information. Michael Hodder, who succeeded Stonham, had the MI5 vetting files sent to the BBC Information and Archives in Reading, Berkshire.

Now to the financing bit of the matter:-

The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £147 per year per household since April 2017. Such a licence is required to legally receive broadcast television across the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. No licence is required to own a television used for other means, or for sound only radio sets (though a separate licence for these was also required for non-TV households until 1971). The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law. A discount is available for households with only black-and-white television sets. A 50% discount is also offered to people who are registered blind or severely visually impaired,[81] and the licence is completely free for any household containing anyone aged 75 or over. As a result of the UK Government’s recent spending review, an agreement has been reached between the government and the corporation in which the current licence fee will remain frozen at the current level until the Royal Charter is renewed at the beginning of 2017.

The BBC pursues its licence fee collection and enforcement under the trading name “TV Licensing”. The revenue is collected privately by Capita, an outside agency, and is paid into the central government Consolidated Fund, a process defined in the Communications Act 2003. Funds are then allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation. Additional revenues are paid by the Department for Work and Pensions to compensate for subsidised licences for eligible over-75-year-olds.

“The licence fee is classified as a tax, and its evasion is a criminal offence. Since 1991, collection and enforcement of the licence fee has been the responsibility of the BBC in its role as TV Licensing Authority. Thus, the BBC is a major prosecuting authority in England and Wales and an investigating authority in the UK as a whole. The BBC carries out surveillance (mostly using subcontractors) on properties (under the auspices of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and may conduct searches of a property using a search warrant. According to the BBC, “more than 204,000 people in the UK were caught watching TV without a licence during the first six months of 2012.” Licence fee evasion makes up around one tenth of all cases prosecuted in magistrates’ courts.

Income from commercial enterprises and from overseas sales of its catalogue of programmes has substantially increased over recent years, with BBC Worldwide contributing some £145 million to the BBC’s core public service business.

According to the BBC’s 2013/14 Annual Report, its total income was £5 billion (£5.066 billion), which can be broken down as follows:
£3.726 billion in licence fees collected from householders;
£1.023 billion from the BBC’s commercial businesses;
£244.6 million from government grants, of which £238.5 million is from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the BBC World Service;
£72.1 million from other income, such as rental collections and royalties from overseas broadcasts of programming.[89]

The licence fee has, however, attracted criticism. It has been argued that in an age of multi stream, multi-channel availability, an obligation to pay a licence fee is no longer appropriate. The BBC’s use of private sector company Capita Group to send letters to premises not paying the licence fee has been criticised, especially as there have been cases where such letters have been sent to premises which are up to date with their payments, or do not require a TV licence.

The BBC uses advertising campaigns to inform customers of the requirement to pay the licence fee. Past campaigns have been criticised by Conservative MP Boris Johnson and former MP Ann Widdecombe for having a threatening nature and language used to scare evaders into paying. Audio clips and television broadcasts are used to inform listeners of the BBC’s comprehensive database. There are a number of pressure groups campaigning on the issue of the licence fee.

The majority of the BBC’s commercial output comes from its commercial arm BBC Worldwide who sell programmes abroad and exploit key brands for merchandise. Of their 2012/13 sales, 27% were centred on the five key “superbrands” of Doctor Who, Top Gear, Strictly Come Dancing (known as Dancing with the Stars internationally), the BBC’s archive of natural history programming (collected under the umbrella of BBC Earth) and the (now sold) travel guide brand Lonely Planet.

Note the bit where it says the BBC funding comes from the Consolidated Fund. Now go figure just a few things, “They don’t want you to know”. The very first thing the Tories did upon being returned to power was to raise the VAT Rate and bring even mote items under VAT. The next was to cut the tax rates of the most wealthy. Now there seems to be a mental block in the general public’s mind that centres upon Income Tax.

However, Under Labour, the main burdens of taxation was moved from tax upon income & wealth and put onto Goods and services. That is from direct to indirect taxation. This has the well known (to economists), of shifting the main burden of taxation from those most able to pay and places it upon those least able to pay. Income tax is relatively unimportant now and even the poorest of the poor must now pay for everyone needs goods and services. Even babes in arms. Not only that but the pound is no longer tied to the Gold Standard and thus Westminster can just print money when it needs it.

So who do you figure will bear the burden of increased funding for the BBC Grant from Westminster when people refuse to pay the licence fee and Westminster pays for it from General taxation that is mainly indirect taxation?

Yup – got it in one – those least able to pay for indirect taxation.

Now do you understand why those who do not pay for a TV licence need to know what the consequences are? Remember to that I make no judgments one way or the other – that is a decision for the individual but to judge the individual need the truth.

Now having said that I stopped not only paying for a TV Licence long ago but also stopped watching the bloody TV programmes. Now, as it happens I could get a licence for free – but I do not apply for one and still don’t watch TV.

If you pay the telly tax then you are directly funding the BBC through your license money. If you don’t pay it then they will lose income.

Income from the licence is primarily used to fund the television, radio and online services of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The total income from licence fees was £3.7872 billion in 2016–17[2] of which £630.4 million or 16.6% was provided by the government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (76.4%) of the BBC’s total income of £4.954 billion in 2016–2017.

The government make up the total income for the BBC from those that no longer need to pay i.e. the over 75’s. This money comes from the Department of Work and Pensions Budget.

Licence fee collection and use

The TV licence fee is collected by the BBC and primarily used to fund the radio, television and online services of the BBC itself. Licence fee collection is the responsibility of the BBC’s Finance and Business division.[3]
The BBC is the TV Licensing Authority in the UK

Although the money is raised for its own use, the BBC does not directly use the collected fees. The money received is first paid into the government’s Consolidated Fund. It is subsequently included in the ‘vote’ for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in that year’s Appropriation Act, and passed back to the BBC for the running of the BBC’s own services (free from commercial advertisements). The money also finances programming for S4C and the BBC World Service as well as to run BBC Monitoring at Caversham.

Between now and 2020 the government will be reducing the money paid by the DWP to the BBC currently for the over 75’s license from 16% to zero. So the BBC are either going to have to find money from elsewhere or suffer cutbacks.

” EU is ready for unprecedented deal with post-Brexit Britain, says Barnier. THE EU IS willing to strike an “ambitious” deal with post-Brexit Britain far beyond any agreements the bloc has made with other countries in the past …. But he warned that any agreement had to respect “the four pillars” of the EU’s cherished single market – the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. “

…. the Tories will need a very long spoon to sup with the EU. So we’ll see soon enough what this means.

” … Not paying your fee scares the government and the BBC as it means you are no longer swallowing their propaganda.”

Aye! And that is the only bit of your comment that makes the slightest sense. BTW: Note the bit I posted where they claimed the money paid into the Consolidated Fund pays for the BBC Foreign Service. Thus the United Kingdom viewers, not the BBC or UK Government, pays to brainwash the rest of the World too.

You hit the nail, they don’t give a shit if they get less cash by licence fee but shit themselves because each year more and more United Kingdom viewers have realised they are not only lied to, but have to pay for being lied to and are paying for the rest of the World to be lied to.

Note also the bit about MI5 vetting – do you think for a moment they are still not making absolutely sure there are no Yessers employed by BBC Scotland.

I was tipped off by a high ranking Dockyard Officer that my name was tagged and I would never gain any significant promotion within the MOD. He was gobsmacked when I told him I knew that but still would be applying for promotions just to worry them that it had become apparent to everyone there was MI5 vetting going on.

Even his quotes directly state “The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £147 per year per household since April 2017. ” That would suggest to me that only the money raised makes it to the BBC and any shortfalls are NOT automatically made up by the consolidated fund.

As the licence is actually now a tax, this revenue is paid to the consolidated fund like all taxes.

I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that shortfalls are made up by general tax payers.

The question about how the BBC is funded comes up here time and time again – including this evening. I had followed the straightforward argument that it is NOT funded from the licence fee but I think it might be more ‘subtle’ (or deliberately obscure?) than that and probably more than your Wikipedia reference suggests.

Throughout this document there is reference to ‘licence fee revenue’. And on page 109 this : “.. reflects how seriously the disciplines of audit and assurance are taken within the BBC, something entirely appropriate for the HANDLING of licence fee payers’ money.” (My emphasis)

But then crucially on page 111 it notes: “Licence fee revenue is treated as an amount due from the relevant Government department, principally the DCMS, on the basis that AMOUNTS RECEIVABLE FROM THE LICENCE FEE PAYERS WILL BE PAID ACROSS”.

The report also uses the phrase ‘the license fee settlement’. On page 117 : “Key assumptions underpinning the (BBC’s) three- year plan, and the associated cash flow forecast, are the licence fee settlement that set the financial parameters for the BBC from 2017/18 to 2021/22 .”

If anyone is interested in delving into this document further, take a look in particular at page 172 on ‘Key Audit Matters’ where it states:

“The BBC’s primary source of FUNDING IS DERIVED FROM the Television Licence Fee (the “licence fee”). The Telecommunications Act 2003 requires that licence fees must
be paid to the BBC which, in turn, MUST REMIT THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED to the Consolidated Fund. The BBC Licence Fee Unit uses an outsourced service provider, Capita, to collect licence fees on its behalf.

Licence fees collected are brought to account within the BBC Television Licence Fee Trust Statement (“the Trust Statement”). This is a separate account, …. The LICENCE FEE REVENUE RECORDED IN THE BBC CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IS A GRANT-IN-AID funding settlement, paid directly to the BBC from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport FROM SUMS DRAWN DOWN for the Consolidated Fund in respect of licence fees issued in the year.”

And:

“The licence fee income and balances recorded in the Trust Statement provide AN AUTHORITATIVE EXPECTATION of the amount of licence fee funding the BBC receives in the year from the Secretary of State, and which it recognises in its financial statements.”

Very considered letter from Alex which allows everybody to move forward and gives those looking to make political capital as little to play with as possible. The dignity of the resignation also allows Alex to rejoin with the minimum of fuss the moment this carry on is resolved.

The right move at the right time. Nicola is free to concentrate on conference, Brexit and Indyref2

OT I guess, but I just feel so sad that AS has resigned although his reasons are, of course, spot on. Hopefully he gets the chance in days and weeks to come to shaft most painfully those who brought this about.

But he mentions a crowdfunder. I dont do twitter so can anyone post a link to his crowdfunder please?

I hope that like Stu’s, AS’s fundraiser goes through the roof, to show his detractors that their smears have not had the intended result of causing a split in Yes ranks.

Hope the rev doesnt come after me with hammers again, it is a very painful way to go 🙁

I’m not totally convinced either. However I think in principle he is correct. A drop in license fee money may cut BBC spending a bit. However, what will get cut from budget are programmes – either actual programmes or quality of them. They will always make sure the propaganda feeds are kept fully financed. And if it got to the stage where they might have to consider that, extra government funds would be found to keep the propaganda flowing.

On the other hand I understand people may be so sickened by the BBC they don’t want to show their disgust by ceasing to pay the fee and I think that’s a perfectly reasonable stance to take.

I also have a link to him via LinkedIn. (But the photos look different to me – or am I just imagining?) Whatever, ‘both’ Nimmos appear to be working in the same field, and I strongly suspect they are one and the same.

Welsh thoughts sent to Alex Salmond, his family, friends and supporters.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

And far from there being a "queue", Prime Minister, the NHS is short of a staggering 100k staff. 12k of them doctors. 40k of them nurses. We desperately need every EU clinician we have. So stop driving them away with your nasty, insinuating rhetoric.